On 23 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Whether or not the GNU foundation needs to mention the Apache project is >> irrelevant: what matters is whether Debian needs to, and a good portion of >> Debian systems DO run Apache code. Isn't it only fair that Debian shares >> the credit for the systems with the people who made parts of them? > >Please read the license more carefully. We certainly do comply with >it.
In that case, this whole thing is a no-op. The issue at hand is whether Debian is breaking the 4 clause BSDL. Apache was used presumably as an example of a 4 clause BSDL (I can't say, it wasn't me who brought it up...) >As for whether we should give Apache some special pre-eminence, that >makes no sense at all. Apache, like all the other packages we >distribute, gets its name nicely blathered in all the places all those >other names get listed. No, it doesn't need PRECEDENCE, it needs EQUALITY... It was said that Debian's mention wasn't enough to cover clause 3: my point is that perhaps this should not be a matter of legality, but one of conscience. If Debian is failing to meet the legal standard for credit where credit is due, it logically must be failing to meet the [much higher IMHO] moral standard. > > -- Here is wisdom. Let him that hath wisdom count the number of the BSD: for it is the number of a man; and his number is VI VI VI. (ir-reve-rent-lations 13:17-19) Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!